Texts in bradrn’s conlangs
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 6:39 am
I’m going to use this thread to try something a little different. Previously I’ve presented my conlang(s) in a scratchpad format — but that’s boring for me to write and for you to read. I want to try a different (and hopefully more interesting) approach with this thread: illustrating them in context, using annotated sample texts.
The first text I’d like to present is a translation of ‘The North Wind and The Sun’. OK, I know I’m not supposed to translate that, but there’s a few mitigating factors. In particular, the language in this case happens to be an unattested protolanguage, so this story is as good as any. But also, this story probably wouldn’t even be too culturally inappropriate, given what we can reconstruct of the protoculture, though it is of course difficult to say for sure.
Sasat thaŋmu tlaqufli Qalit thaŋ waqli gilut fawetlli, ‘naqeŋ khayiqenebey tshaal pawtiq?’,
/ˈsasat ˈtʰaŋmu ˈt͡ɬaʔufli ˈʔalit tʰaŋ ˈwaʔli ˈɣilut ˈfawət͡ɬli | ˈnaʔəŋ ˈkʰajiʔənəbəj t͡sʰaːl ˈpawtiʔ/
sasat thaŋ=mu tlaquf-li qalit thaŋ waq-li gilut fawetl-li, ‘naqen khayiq-ene=bey tshaal pawtiq?’,
wind DEF.SG=PST follow-CONT sun DEF.SG do.IPFV-CONT argument say.IPFV-CONT, ‘who strong-NMLZ=Q leave all?’,
The Wind and the Sun were disputing saying ‘who is strongest?’,
The first clause here is a serial verb construction (SVC). Here, tlaquf ‘follow, accompany’ introduces a comitative argument Qalit thaŋ ‘the Sun’, while the final fawetl ‘say’ acts as a quotative (required before all direct and indirect speech). The middle verb in this SVC, waq ‘do’, is used here as a light verb: waq gilut ‘do argument = dispute’. Note the agreement between verbs in a SVC: in this case, all are in the continuative aspect, indicating an ongoing action where the start and end of the action are defocused. Both SVCs and light verbs are omnipresent in discourse, due mostly to the paucity of verbs (many descendant languages, especially older ones, have a closed verb class, and presumably the protolanguage did as well); the ‘missing’ verbs must thus be expressed using other techniques.
Also prominent here are second-position clitics. The clitic =mu expresses past tense; it is non-obligatory, being most common in introductions and conclusions. We might say that, in addition to marking past tense, it also has a backgrounding function. Also present is =bey, marking questions. Though these are both second-position clitics, they differ in the details of their positioning. =bey may appear only at the end of the first phrase, while =mu may additionally appear after the first word (so both Sasat thaŋmu … and Sasatmu thaŋ are grammatical).
qaŋethinga siwitsi lamaq yusayetsi.
/ˈʔaŋətʰiᵑɡa ˈsiwit͡si ˈlamaʔ ˈjusajət͡si/
qaŋeth=inga siwi-tsi lamaq yusaye-tsi
person=MIR have.PFV-DIM cloak come.PFV-DIM
when a person came along with a cloak.
Another SVC: here, the directional construction ‘have come’ is used for the single verb ‘bring’. Again, note the aspectual agreement, with both verbs in the diminutive aspect. This aspect has the core meaning of ‘punctual or limited duration’; here it is used in the extended sense of ‘interrupted action’. It is accompanied here by the clitic =inga, expressing unexpectedness or surprise (a ‘mirative’). An interesting feature of the aspectual system is that nearly all verbs undergo stem alternations depending on whether they are in a perfective or an imperfective example. As seen here, the diminutive is considered a perfective aspect, with the perfective stems siwi and yusaye corresponding to the imperfective stems siwe and yusaa respectively.
One quirk of this language (and its descendents) is that it has a strong preference for clause juxtaposition over explicit co- or subordination. The exact relationship often ends up being coded primarily in the choice of aspects. Here the first clause is in the continuative aspect while the second is in a perfective aspect, indicating that the second takes place while the first is still ongoing.
Ŋiiyusaye wiiletsi fawetli tsah naaqa waq qaŋeth thaŋ siifa lamaq qulu, ŋay nii khayiq.
/ŋiːˈjusajə ˈwiːlət͡si ˈfawət͡ɬi t͡sah ˈnaːʔa waʔ ˈʔaŋətʰ tʰaŋ ˈsiːfa ˈlamaʔ ˈʔulu | ŋaj niː ˈkʰajiʔ/
ŋii=yusaye wiiletsi fawetli tsah naaqa waq qaŋeth thaŋ siifa lamaq qulu, ŋay nii khayiq
3p=fall.PFV contact.PFV say.PFV if someone do person DEF.SG remove cloak move.off, 3s COP strong
They agreed that if someone could make the person take off his cloak, he is strong.
The first part of this sentence is an idiomatic SVC: yusaa wiilets ‘fall contact = agree’. Such constructions are common, again due to the paucity of verbs. Syntactically, it’s a causative: the construction would be non-idiomatically interpreted as ‘X fall contact = X falls, [so] X touches’. There is a more straightforward causative later on, with the causee introduced by waq ‘do/make’. (The verb takes on both meanings, a surprisingly common collocation crosslinguistically.) The verb complex is ended by the directional verb qulu ‘move off’. The whole construction is thus naaqa waq qaŋeth siifa lamaq qulu ‘someone make/do person remove cloak off = someone makes the person take off their cloak’.
Sasat thaŋ yusaa waq haŋuhaŋu qaŋeth thaŋ, kaday mahŋu ŋay;
/ˈsasat tʰaŋ ˈjusaː ˈwaʔ ˈhaŋuˈhaŋu ˈʔaŋətʰ tʰaŋ | ˈkadaj ˈmahŋu ŋaj/
sasat thaŋ yusaa waq haŋu~haŋu qaŋeth thaŋ, kaday mah-ŋu ŋay;
wind DEF.SG come.IPFV do.IPFV IDEO person DEF.SG, exhaustion do.PFV-TEL 3s;
The wind came and blew and blew across the person, until he was exhausted;
This clause gives an example of an ideophone: haŋuhaŋu ‘blowing persistently and/or strongly across another object’. Ideophones are a poorly-defined class in this language, having a mostly phonological definition: they are either monosyllabic or reduplicated (most other content words are straightforwardly disyllabic, with the exception of a few particularly common verbs). Syntactically, they have few distinguishing features — this one, like the majority of ideophones, fits straightforwardly into the class of coverbs. These are verbal words which can only be used together with a supporting light verb, here waq ‘do’. As there are no ditransitive verbs, a diagnostic feature of coverbs is that they can give the appearance of a verb with two objects; this is seen in the sentence above, which has mahŋu haŋuhaŋu qaŋeth thaŋ ‘do haŋuhaŋu the person’.
(Honestly, I’m not entirely sure if ideophones are reconstructable at the protolanguage level; I’m assuming they are, because it’s pretty difficult to tell a story without them.)
Also present are some other interesting features. Kaday mahŋu ŋay is a so-called ‘experiencer-object construction’, in which the animate experiencer is placed in object position, with an abstract noun being used as the subject. Here the construction is ‘exhaustion does him’, for ‘[until] he was exhausted’. Incidentally, this also gives another example of clause juxtaposition: ‘the wind came and blew [imperfective] onto the person, he was exhausted [telic]’ implies that the first clause led to the second as its end result.
tsan naa qaŋeth thaŋ siwe lamaq thaŋ ŋandi mandaŋ phuum.
/t͡san naː ˈʔaŋətʰ tʰaŋ ˈsiwə ˈlamaʔ tʰaŋ ˈŋaⁿdi ˈmaⁿdaŋ pʰuːm/
tsan naa qaŋeth thaŋ siwe lamaq thaŋ ŋandi mandaŋ phuum.
but and person DEF.SG take.IPFV cloak DEF.SG pull.IPFV pass.IPFV IDEO
but the person wrapped the cloak around himself tightly.
The construction of this clause is pretty similar to that of those before it. It starts with a conjunction tsan naa ‘but’; this is a complex conjunction, literally ‘but and’. The clause itself is a SVC. It starts with siwe ‘take’ to introduce the undergoer, then continues with the main action ŋandi ‘pull’, finishing with a directional element mandaŋ ‘pass’. This last might seem slightly odd, but is simply an instance of the polysemy so common in verbs: it is used here in the related sense of going ‘around’ something. The clause ends with another ideophone: phuum ‘snug, warm’. As with many ideophones, this one is somewhat unusual in its phonology — it uses the long vowel /uː/, which is unattested outside ideophones (the usual vowel inventory is /a ə i u aː iː/), and is monosyllabic.
Qalit thaŋ yusayetsi siifitsi qaathanitsi waalhitsi qaŋeth thaŋ, qiyan paatliŋu qaŋeth thaŋ siifiŋu lamaq thaŋ qefayeŋu.
/ˈʔalit tʰaŋ ˈjusajət͡si ˈsiːfit͡si ˈʔaːtʰanit͡si ˈwaːɬit͡si ˈʔaŋətʰ tʰaŋ | ˈʔijan ˈpaːt͡ɬiŋu ˈʔaŋətʰ tʰaŋ ˈsiːfiŋu ˈlamaʔ tʰaŋ ˈʔəfajəŋu/
qalit thaŋ yusaye-tsi siifi-tsi qaathani-tsi waalhi-tsi qaŋeth thaŋ, qi=yan paatli-ŋu qaŋeth thaŋ siifi-ŋu lamaq thaŋ qefaye-ŋu.
sun DEF.SG come.PFV-DIM emit.PFV-DIM fall.PFV-DIM go.PFV-DIM person DEF, 3s=already give.PFV-TEL person DEF.SG remove.PFV-TEL cloak DEF.SG rise.PFV-TEL
The sun came and shone onto the person, and immediately the person took off his cloak.
Siifa, glossed here ‘emit’, is a typical polysemous verb, taking on meanings including but not limited to ‘emit, shine, breathe, communicate,
describe, show, remove, delete, stop’ (though curiously not ‘emit sound / speak’, which is fawetl). The directional element is qaathan ‘fall’ indicating downwards direction, followed by waalh ‘go’ to introduce the target of motion — this latter is necessary as qaathan cannot take a direct argument specifying a target.
The second clause here displays a quirk of clitic positioning. As with =bey, =yan is positioned strictly after the first constituent. Here however this is a problem — the first constituent is itself a proclitic, namely the third person pronominal qi=. It is possible to position the second-position enclitic after the first phonological word — qipaatliŋuyan — but perhaps more common is for the enclitic to interrupt the phonological word and split it in two, giving the result seen here: qiyan paatliŋu. (The first ‘word’ here still isn’t particularly stressed, so it could be argued that =yan is an endoclitic interrupting a single phonological word: qiyanpaatliŋu.)
Sasat thaŋmu yusayeŋu wiiletsiŋu fawetliŋu, ‘nikhayiqenedaa thaŋ tshaal bal’.
/ˈsasat ˈtʰaŋmu ˈjusajəŋu ˈwiːlət͡siŋu ˈfawət͡ɬiŋu | niˈkʰajiʔənədaː tʰaŋ t͡sʰaːl bal/
sasat thaŋ=mu yusaye-ŋu wiiletsi-ŋu fawetli-ŋu, ‘ni=khayiq-ene=daa thaŋ tshaal bal’.
wind DEF.SG=PST fall.PFV-TEL contact.PFV-TEL say.PFV-TEL, ‘2s=strong-NMLZ=CONF DEF.SG leave 1s’.
So the wind came to agree with the sun: ‘you are indeed stronger than me’.
The story ends with a comparative, literally ‘your strength leaves/surpasses me’. Perhaps surprisingly, this is not an SVC: the construction involves an adjective converted to an inalienably possessed quality noun, which is said to ‘leave’ (alternately ‘surpass’) another’s quality. (Indeed, a comparative SVC would be practically impossible: ‘adjectives’ have nominal rather than verbal character, as they refer to objects having a certain quality as opposed to the state of having that quality.) The clitic =daa ‘indeed’ is not part of the SVC, but expresses confirmation. Its positioning rule is different to that of =yan, and thus does not show the same ‘quirky’ behaviour.
The first text I’d like to present is a translation of ‘The North Wind and The Sun’. OK, I know I’m not supposed to translate that, but there’s a few mitigating factors. In particular, the language in this case happens to be an unattested protolanguage, so this story is as good as any. But also, this story probably wouldn’t even be too culturally inappropriate, given what we can reconstruct of the protoculture, though it is of course difficult to say for sure.
Sasat thaŋmu tlaqufli Qalit thaŋ waqli gilut fawetlli, ‘naqeŋ khayiqenebey tshaal pawtiq?’,
/ˈsasat ˈtʰaŋmu ˈt͡ɬaʔufli ˈʔalit tʰaŋ ˈwaʔli ˈɣilut ˈfawət͡ɬli | ˈnaʔəŋ ˈkʰajiʔənəbəj t͡sʰaːl ˈpawtiʔ/
sasat thaŋ=mu tlaquf-li qalit thaŋ waq-li gilut fawetl-li, ‘naqen khayiq-ene=bey tshaal pawtiq?’,
wind DEF.SG=PST follow-CONT sun DEF.SG do.IPFV-CONT argument say.IPFV-CONT, ‘who strong-NMLZ=Q leave all?’,
The Wind and the Sun were disputing saying ‘who is strongest?’,
The first clause here is a serial verb construction (SVC). Here, tlaquf ‘follow, accompany’ introduces a comitative argument Qalit thaŋ ‘the Sun’, while the final fawetl ‘say’ acts as a quotative (required before all direct and indirect speech). The middle verb in this SVC, waq ‘do’, is used here as a light verb: waq gilut ‘do argument = dispute’. Note the agreement between verbs in a SVC: in this case, all are in the continuative aspect, indicating an ongoing action where the start and end of the action are defocused. Both SVCs and light verbs are omnipresent in discourse, due mostly to the paucity of verbs (many descendant languages, especially older ones, have a closed verb class, and presumably the protolanguage did as well); the ‘missing’ verbs must thus be expressed using other techniques.
Also prominent here are second-position clitics. The clitic =mu expresses past tense; it is non-obligatory, being most common in introductions and conclusions. We might say that, in addition to marking past tense, it also has a backgrounding function. Also present is =bey, marking questions. Though these are both second-position clitics, they differ in the details of their positioning. =bey may appear only at the end of the first phrase, while =mu may additionally appear after the first word (so both Sasat thaŋmu … and Sasatmu thaŋ are grammatical).
qaŋethinga siwitsi lamaq yusayetsi.
/ˈʔaŋətʰiᵑɡa ˈsiwit͡si ˈlamaʔ ˈjusajət͡si/
qaŋeth=inga siwi-tsi lamaq yusaye-tsi
person=MIR have.PFV-DIM cloak come.PFV-DIM
when a person came along with a cloak.
Another SVC: here, the directional construction ‘have come’ is used for the single verb ‘bring’. Again, note the aspectual agreement, with both verbs in the diminutive aspect. This aspect has the core meaning of ‘punctual or limited duration’; here it is used in the extended sense of ‘interrupted action’. It is accompanied here by the clitic =inga, expressing unexpectedness or surprise (a ‘mirative’). An interesting feature of the aspectual system is that nearly all verbs undergo stem alternations depending on whether they are in a perfective or an imperfective example. As seen here, the diminutive is considered a perfective aspect, with the perfective stems siwi and yusaye corresponding to the imperfective stems siwe and yusaa respectively.
One quirk of this language (and its descendents) is that it has a strong preference for clause juxtaposition over explicit co- or subordination. The exact relationship often ends up being coded primarily in the choice of aspects. Here the first clause is in the continuative aspect while the second is in a perfective aspect, indicating that the second takes place while the first is still ongoing.
Ŋiiyusaye wiiletsi fawetli tsah naaqa waq qaŋeth thaŋ siifa lamaq qulu, ŋay nii khayiq.
/ŋiːˈjusajə ˈwiːlət͡si ˈfawət͡ɬi t͡sah ˈnaːʔa waʔ ˈʔaŋətʰ tʰaŋ ˈsiːfa ˈlamaʔ ˈʔulu | ŋaj niː ˈkʰajiʔ/
ŋii=yusaye wiiletsi fawetli tsah naaqa waq qaŋeth thaŋ siifa lamaq qulu, ŋay nii khayiq
3p=fall.PFV contact.PFV say.PFV if someone do person DEF.SG remove cloak move.off, 3s COP strong
They agreed that if someone could make the person take off his cloak, he is strong.
The first part of this sentence is an idiomatic SVC: yusaa wiilets ‘fall contact = agree’. Such constructions are common, again due to the paucity of verbs. Syntactically, it’s a causative: the construction would be non-idiomatically interpreted as ‘X fall contact = X falls, [so] X touches’. There is a more straightforward causative later on, with the causee introduced by waq ‘do/make’. (The verb takes on both meanings, a surprisingly common collocation crosslinguistically.) The verb complex is ended by the directional verb qulu ‘move off’. The whole construction is thus naaqa waq qaŋeth siifa lamaq qulu ‘someone make/do person remove cloak off = someone makes the person take off their cloak’.
Sasat thaŋ yusaa waq haŋuhaŋu qaŋeth thaŋ, kaday mahŋu ŋay;
/ˈsasat tʰaŋ ˈjusaː ˈwaʔ ˈhaŋuˈhaŋu ˈʔaŋətʰ tʰaŋ | ˈkadaj ˈmahŋu ŋaj/
sasat thaŋ yusaa waq haŋu~haŋu qaŋeth thaŋ, kaday mah-ŋu ŋay;
wind DEF.SG come.IPFV do.IPFV IDEO person DEF.SG, exhaustion do.PFV-TEL 3s;
The wind came and blew and blew across the person, until he was exhausted;
This clause gives an example of an ideophone: haŋuhaŋu ‘blowing persistently and/or strongly across another object’. Ideophones are a poorly-defined class in this language, having a mostly phonological definition: they are either monosyllabic or reduplicated (most other content words are straightforwardly disyllabic, with the exception of a few particularly common verbs). Syntactically, they have few distinguishing features — this one, like the majority of ideophones, fits straightforwardly into the class of coverbs. These are verbal words which can only be used together with a supporting light verb, here waq ‘do’. As there are no ditransitive verbs, a diagnostic feature of coverbs is that they can give the appearance of a verb with two objects; this is seen in the sentence above, which has mahŋu haŋuhaŋu qaŋeth thaŋ ‘do haŋuhaŋu the person’.
(Honestly, I’m not entirely sure if ideophones are reconstructable at the protolanguage level; I’m assuming they are, because it’s pretty difficult to tell a story without them.)
Also present are some other interesting features. Kaday mahŋu ŋay is a so-called ‘experiencer-object construction’, in which the animate experiencer is placed in object position, with an abstract noun being used as the subject. Here the construction is ‘exhaustion does him’, for ‘[until] he was exhausted’. Incidentally, this also gives another example of clause juxtaposition: ‘the wind came and blew [imperfective] onto the person, he was exhausted [telic]’ implies that the first clause led to the second as its end result.
tsan naa qaŋeth thaŋ siwe lamaq thaŋ ŋandi mandaŋ phuum.
/t͡san naː ˈʔaŋətʰ tʰaŋ ˈsiwə ˈlamaʔ tʰaŋ ˈŋaⁿdi ˈmaⁿdaŋ pʰuːm/
tsan naa qaŋeth thaŋ siwe lamaq thaŋ ŋandi mandaŋ phuum.
but and person DEF.SG take.IPFV cloak DEF.SG pull.IPFV pass.IPFV IDEO
but the person wrapped the cloak around himself tightly.
The construction of this clause is pretty similar to that of those before it. It starts with a conjunction tsan naa ‘but’; this is a complex conjunction, literally ‘but and’. The clause itself is a SVC. It starts with siwe ‘take’ to introduce the undergoer, then continues with the main action ŋandi ‘pull’, finishing with a directional element mandaŋ ‘pass’. This last might seem slightly odd, but is simply an instance of the polysemy so common in verbs: it is used here in the related sense of going ‘around’ something. The clause ends with another ideophone: phuum ‘snug, warm’. As with many ideophones, this one is somewhat unusual in its phonology — it uses the long vowel /uː/, which is unattested outside ideophones (the usual vowel inventory is /a ə i u aː iː/), and is monosyllabic.
Qalit thaŋ yusayetsi siifitsi qaathanitsi waalhitsi qaŋeth thaŋ, qiyan paatliŋu qaŋeth thaŋ siifiŋu lamaq thaŋ qefayeŋu.
/ˈʔalit tʰaŋ ˈjusajət͡si ˈsiːfit͡si ˈʔaːtʰanit͡si ˈwaːɬit͡si ˈʔaŋətʰ tʰaŋ | ˈʔijan ˈpaːt͡ɬiŋu ˈʔaŋətʰ tʰaŋ ˈsiːfiŋu ˈlamaʔ tʰaŋ ˈʔəfajəŋu/
qalit thaŋ yusaye-tsi siifi-tsi qaathani-tsi waalhi-tsi qaŋeth thaŋ, qi=yan paatli-ŋu qaŋeth thaŋ siifi-ŋu lamaq thaŋ qefaye-ŋu.
sun DEF.SG come.PFV-DIM emit.PFV-DIM fall.PFV-DIM go.PFV-DIM person DEF, 3s=already give.PFV-TEL person DEF.SG remove.PFV-TEL cloak DEF.SG rise.PFV-TEL
The sun came and shone onto the person, and immediately the person took off his cloak.
Siifa, glossed here ‘emit’, is a typical polysemous verb, taking on meanings including but not limited to ‘emit, shine, breathe, communicate,
describe, show, remove, delete, stop’ (though curiously not ‘emit sound / speak’, which is fawetl). The directional element is qaathan ‘fall’ indicating downwards direction, followed by waalh ‘go’ to introduce the target of motion — this latter is necessary as qaathan cannot take a direct argument specifying a target.
The second clause here displays a quirk of clitic positioning. As with =bey, =yan is positioned strictly after the first constituent. Here however this is a problem — the first constituent is itself a proclitic, namely the third person pronominal qi=. It is possible to position the second-position enclitic after the first phonological word — qipaatliŋuyan — but perhaps more common is for the enclitic to interrupt the phonological word and split it in two, giving the result seen here: qiyan paatliŋu. (The first ‘word’ here still isn’t particularly stressed, so it could be argued that =yan is an endoclitic interrupting a single phonological word: qiyanpaatliŋu.)
Sasat thaŋmu yusayeŋu wiiletsiŋu fawetliŋu, ‘nikhayiqenedaa thaŋ tshaal bal’.
/ˈsasat ˈtʰaŋmu ˈjusajəŋu ˈwiːlət͡siŋu ˈfawət͡ɬiŋu | niˈkʰajiʔənədaː tʰaŋ t͡sʰaːl bal/
sasat thaŋ=mu yusaye-ŋu wiiletsi-ŋu fawetli-ŋu, ‘ni=khayiq-ene=daa thaŋ tshaal bal’.
wind DEF.SG=PST fall.PFV-TEL contact.PFV-TEL say.PFV-TEL, ‘2s=strong-NMLZ=CONF DEF.SG leave 1s’.
So the wind came to agree with the sun: ‘you are indeed stronger than me’.
The story ends with a comparative, literally ‘your strength leaves/surpasses me’. Perhaps surprisingly, this is not an SVC: the construction involves an adjective converted to an inalienably possessed quality noun, which is said to ‘leave’ (alternately ‘surpass’) another’s quality. (Indeed, a comparative SVC would be practically impossible: ‘adjectives’ have nominal rather than verbal character, as they refer to objects having a certain quality as opposed to the state of having that quality.) The clitic =daa ‘indeed’ is not part of the SVC, but expresses confirmation. Its positioning rule is different to that of =yan, and thus does not show the same ‘quirky’ behaviour.
